Mod 7 - Bord and Pillar Mining and Extension

Modification Request Dartbrook Underground Coal Application No DA
231-07-2000 MOD7 Our Submission is an objection : Our concerns are for
Health & Safety Air & water pollution, Dust, Lighting, Noise, Traffic
to and from the mine site, will it be on public roads or their private
road.

I object to the Dartbrook Coal Mine DA 231-7-2000 Modification 7 on the
basis of the air quality, noise, water and visual implications of the
Project as outlined below;
1. Air Quality
- unacceptable dust and air quality implications of the Project have
not been assessed.
- cumulative air quality impacts have not been assessed.
- Modification starts with exceedances - thoroughly inappropriate.
- NSW Government should not approve any additional mines
in the Upper Hunter given the admission of mine proponents
that there will be exceedances and their lack of accountability
to take any responsibility.
2. Noise:
- AQC fails to provide appropriate assessments of the noise impact of
this Modification.
- the proponents noise impact submission is nothing more than a brief
summary with no adequate noise impact analysis
and no comparison of the noise limits detailed 20 years ago versus
noise levels in today's environment.
- no appropriate detail is provided in AQC's EA to enable a
full and transparent interrogation of the Project.
- noise levels, like air quality, show exceedances of project
noise limits which is unacceptable.
3. Water:
- I am very concerned about the impacts of recommencing
underground mining on this site and the implications for our
water systems, including our aquifers and Hunter River.
4. Visual Impacts:
- Modification will result in 96 truck cycles (192 one way truck
movements) 11 hours per day, 5 days a week.
- Environmental Assessment does not acknowledge or assess
the impact of this proposal on 10 -12 rural residences, located
500m to less than 1km from the project) that will be visibly impacted
by this modification.
- there are other residents in elevated parts of Aberdeen that
will also have visibility of activities associated with the
Modification which have not been assessed.
- Modification does not assess the dust and visual impact of
significantly higher truck movements on residents.
- Modification fails to assess full visual impacts on the town
of Aberdeen, nearby residents, agricultural industries, travellers and
tourists to the region.

I am especially concerned about the adverse impacts of underground mining
on water systems here, including the Hunter River and local aquifers.
Given the amount of people living in the area - all of whom already
suffer too many air pollution exceedances and many of whom suffer the
related health impacts - I cannot see how the government can consider
approving any extra mines in the Upper Hunter. This Modification
begins with exceedances as an accepted impact!
This ought not be countenanced and I am appalled that they dare
present this.
Cumulative air quality impacts must be assessed.

Again impacting residents, there must be adequate and up-to-date noise
impact analysis and cumulative impacts. And again, noise level
exceedances are not acceptable: that is actually setting a new norm.

The proposal does not address the visual impact on residents, nearby
Aberdeen, visitors and other rural industries like viticulture,
tourism and the thoroughbred businesses. This will also arise from the
increased truck activities: 96 truck cycles (192 one-way truck
movements) 11 hours daily, five days a week. Where is the assessment
of the impact on about a dozen residences less than 1 km away?

The justification for the project is based on cost assumptions, which
are understated and do not include the environmental costs, and indeed
there is no socio-economic analysis as was required by the Dept. of
Planning.

Dartbrook Mine Objection
I wish to very strongly object to the proposal to re-establish the old
Dartbrook Mine and its associated projects.
I was a member of the original Dart Mine Community Consultative
Committee and lived in Aberdeen.
The original project failed largely because the extraction of coal
from the area was not able to meet the conditions of concept for the
project and associate infrastructure.
When considering this project for approval I believe that the
authorities and support agencies must take into account the minutes
and support information of the DMCCC,
It should also be noted that the mine failed at a time when coal
prices were generous. In a depressed and declining market there can be
little chance of the new proponent being able to meet even very
generous consent conditions.
Dust, noise, water and visual impacts are all very serious issues that
due to the location of the mine in the bottom of the geographic valley
have great negative impacts. The cumulative impact of the project must
be taken very seriously.
If the mine is approved as a minimum a condition of consent must
include the requirement that is extracted from the project must use
the CHPP and rail facilities at the Bengalla Mine (or some other
approve site) and permission for use of facilities on the east side of
the site be firmly refused.
If approval is granted then there must be very firm and achievable
processes and requirements for a full and complete reclamation.
I declare I have no pecuniary connection with the project.

Rick Banyard
Maryville

I Object

Thank you for the opportunity of expressing my concerns over the
Dartbrook Modification No 7 As a 4th generation family member of
landholders in The Upper Hunter Valley it is with great distress that
I have seen first hand the deterioration of our beloved area. The
cumulative affect of so many open cut coal mines in this area has had
a noticeable impact on the air quality on our property despite the
fact that we are situated 21 kms north of Scone. I suffer from a
persistent cough which disappears if I leave the area for any length
of time. I understand that without the proper testing it is impossible
to totally blame the air quality for this problem but it is rather
telling that the problem goes away when I leave the area. No mine can
absolutely guarantee that disturbing the aquifers which run
underground all through this country, will not have a detrimental
affect on water quality. When this does happen, and it will, it will
be far too late to reverse the damage. Man made climate change is
real. The alarming rate of mine development and expansion in this area
is criminal. The lack of acknowledgement of manmade climate change by
this current government is, in my view, negligent. I feel there is a
blatant disregard that the impact of mining fossil fuels is having on
our environment. I am not an academic or an expert in the fields or
any of the sciences associated with mining. I am simply a very
concerned Grandmother who wants to see a future for her Grandchildren
and the planet.

The mine appears to have substantial unanswered questions regarding its
impact on the town of Aberdeen as well as those of Muswellbrook and
Scone. These are primarily focused on the impacts on the Hunter River
water system and surrounding aquifers, which further affect all towns
downstream on the Hunter to the city of Newcastle. Further, the issues
not appropriately addressed in the application and supporting
materials include air quality, noise, visual impacts as well as
cultural heritage assessments.

I understand the mine was closed in 2006 after 3 deaths over 12 years
and many problems with gas, water and spontaneous combustion. It would
appear these issues and those stated above have not been appropriately
addressed for approval to be granted.

I am a resident of the Wybong Community. We are already negatively
impacted by coal mining through noise, poor air quality, ruined visual
amenity and ruined property values.
This application for restarting an undergound mine will only add to
these negative impacts with increased dust and noise. Also adding to
the image of the Hunter Valley being a no go zone to live in, thus
leaving those with property here owning a stranded asset without any
recognition or help from the government with this problem.
This application proposes to have 192 truck movements per day across
the Blairmore Lane. We use this road to access Scone and are concerned
for public safety.
The applicant has also clearly stated they wish to make the Dartbrook
lease an open cut mine. This application should be seen as a foot in
the door towards this large open cut mine proposal and halted before
it starts.
The local area is already suffering from too many coal mines and no
further mining activity should be approved regardless of its merit.
Each new application for approval, modification or expansion can no
longer be looked at on its own. The cumulative impacts of all mines
have to be considered as this what residents and other businesses
experience - the extremely negative impact of all the operations.
Mining is not a sustainable industry and what will be left of this
once beautiful productive region of NSW when all the coal has been
extracted? Enough is enough' lets preserve what is left of the Hunter
Valley for future generations. It falls on individuals to grant the
approvals and those individuals can make a choice to not approve
further mining activity, thus protecting the residents and environment
of the Hunter Valley.
It would be a brave/ foolish government and Dept of Planning that
continues to approve mines and expansions without worrying about the
long term negative impacts on human health and the environment.
Please do not add to the already enormous burden the residents of the
Hunter Valley experience at the hands of government policy without any
compensation. Do not approve this application.

Opening a closed mine that has serious underground gas issues, that will
completly change the landscape in and around Aberdeen, so close to
residental housing, affecting the health of residents, our water and
agricultural industry, for the sake of a short term cheap purchase for
a money hungry investor, who has a history of not paying employees
correct entitlements and a history of failing enterprise is mind
bloggling to me. Keep this mine shut and keep Tinkler away from the
stock exchange.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Given the extensive dry time being experienced, I am very concerned
about the impacts of recommencing underground mining on this site and
the implications on our aquifers and the Hunter River. If, as has been
recorded locally, this was a very wet mine previously, the amount of
water that will be produced is a real concern for upstream and
downstream water users.

The connectivity of this site should be further examined and an
independent water study (not by the mine proponents) be undertaken to
ensure transparency in the process.

Further, no exceedances should be allowed by this mine given the
potential cumulative impacts of all proposed developments within a
short distance of this proposal.

Any averaging system for dust or noise considered should also be ruled
out. The averaging system means that on days when the mine should be
active and diligent in its responsibilities, it can fall short of
those responsibilities because `on average' dust and noise are within
the set limits. This system rewards mines for inaction on days when
they really need to be on top of their game.

Consideration should also be given to setting a standard in terms of
air quality for the area likely to be impacted by this and other
mines. That standard should be applied whether there is one, two or
more mines. Meaning on really bad days, all mines within a defined
area are required to redouble their efforts to minimise dust as an
example.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission.

I don't believe the mine should be approve do to its proximity to the
neighbouring townships. Mining close to towns it not good for peoples
health. I strong object to this mine. The proximity to major water
ways is also a environmental concern

* Note public statements that the mine's real intention is for open cut
mining and that the underground proposal is not genuine.
* In addition, there has been no proper community consultation and
former coal experts have previously indicated their concerns of the
risky proposal.
* The mine proponents have not openly addressed the issues (gas, fire
and flooding) which led to the closing of the mine into a questionable
state of "care and maintenance". The head of the Hunter River or
underground aquifers should not be compromised.

I am furious that the the community and individuals are required to
participate in so many processes related to individual mines that have
the potential to threaten the future of our community and the Hunter's
Equine Critical Industry Cluster.

I am angry that the equine Industry's long standing proposal for
buffers around its critical cluster, which would provide investment
certainty for all parties, has not yet been addressed.

I note public statements that the mine's real intention is for open
cut mining and that the underground proposal is not genuine.

In addition, there has been no proper community consultation and
former coal experts have previously indicated their concerns of the
risky proposal.

The mine proponents have not openly addressed the issues (gas, fire
and flooding) which led to the closing of the mine into a questionable
state of "care and maintenance". The head of the Hunter River or
underground aquifers should not be compromised.

I object to this proposal on the basis of the greenhouse emission that
will result from
a) the burning of this coal after market
b) the fugitive emissions during mining. While in care and maintenance
this men was producing 40 000 tons of CO2 equivalent/year. As a member
of the CCC I raised concerns about this regularly. These emissions
will only increase if mining continues. This mine needs to be sealed
to prevent further pollution.
Climate change is impacting now. It will only get worse until we
reduce our use of fossil fuels, especially the dirtiest, coal.

Moving more coal will result in more LM2.5 partial emissions along the
rail corridor, negatively impacting on the health to residents along
this corridor.

Cumulative air quality impacts have not been assessed
There is no socio economic analysis as required by the Dept of
Planning
Noise and air quality show exceedances of the project limits
aboriginal and cultural Heritage has not been fully assessed

Very concerned landowner. My objection is because of the potential impact
on our critical underground water, the air quality and health
concerns.
And because of the impact on our world renown thoroughbred industry.
If the industry is effected then it will have a major impact on our
community, employment and brand image. The Upper Hunter Valley is
known as a beautiful, clean and normally green area attracting
tourists from all over Australia.
The area has been negatively impacted for years by the mines. Look at
Muswellbrook and Singleton. The once beautiful countryside now looks
like a luna landscape. We do not want any further expansion of the
mines.

My family have been farming in this area for 5 generations and want to
continue to do so.
The impact of this mine reopening will have a detrimental effect on
our invaluable water supply and on our air quality.
There is also a proven health impact associated with the mines and we
do not need yet another mine.
Please do not reopen the Dartbrook mine.

I am very concerned that the Dartbrook mine may reopen.
Our family has been farming in this area since 1837 and want to
continue to do so.
The potential impact on the aquifer and our water for farming is a
major concern.
Also the air quality and the associated health impacts are a big
issue.
Why is the cancer rate in the Hunter Valley at the highest in the
country Because of the impact the mining industry has had on our air
quality.

I strongly object to this mine reopening.
The negative impact on the air quality, precious underground water and
landscape are to be avoided.
How is the Government considering yet another mine when the impact on
global warning from fossil fuels is already having such a frightening
impact on the world weather.
Please do not reopen the Dartbrook mine.

We note public statements that the mine's real intention is for open cut
mining and that the underground proposal is not genuine. In addition,
there has been no proper community consultation and former coal
experts have previously indicated their concerns of the risky
proposal. The mine proponents have not openly addressed the issues
(gas, fire and flooding) which led to the closing of the mine into a
questionable state of "care and maintenance". The head of the Hunter
River or underground aquifers should not be compromised.